ADV. RAVISUSHA, MEMBER.

            This complaint has filed by the complainant for getting pensionary benefits under the EPS. 1995 and other reliefs.

          The averments in the complainant can be briefly summarized as follows:

          The complainant was a cashew worker under the 1^st opp.party’s institution, she retired from service on 31.12.1998 on attaining 60 years.   The complainant had valid EPF membership.   Though the complainant applied for pensionary benefits under the EPS 1995, the 2^nd opp.party rejected her pension application.   Hence she approached the Forum for relief.

          The 2^nd opp.party filed a version contending, interalia, that the complainant is out of the ambit of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995, since she acquired 60 years of age before commencement of the Scheme.   This position was duly intimated to her by letter dated 1.12.2000.  The complaint is barred by period of limitation as under Section 24-A of the C.P. Act 1986 and not maintainable.   The complainant Smt. Baby was an Employees Provident Fund subscriber from 1.7.1968 bearing A/c. No.KR/1174/619.  She was not a member of the Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971 or Employees Pension Scheme 1995.  She did not contribute to the Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971.  She left service on 31.12.1998.   The complainant had acquired 60 years of age on 3.10.1992 ie. Lprior to the introduction of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 commencing from 16.11.1995.  As per the statutory declaration her date of birth stands as 3.10.1932.  Thereby she acquired 60 years on 3.10.1992 ie. Prior to the commencement of Employees Pension Scheme 1995.The complainant was not a member of the Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971 she did not contribute to the Family Pension Scheme 1971.  The contributions erroneously shown as pension contribution for 12/95 to 1/98 were credited to  her Employees Provident Fund account and settlement effected on 22.11.2000.  As per Form NO.2 the complainant is out of the ambit of the Scheme due to her age.  Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint.

Points that would arise for consideration are:

1.     Whether the complainant is entitled to get the pensionary benefits under the EPs 1995.

2.     Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties

3.     Reliefs and costs.\

For the complainant PW.1 is examined.   Ext. P1 and P2 are marked.

For the opp.party DW.1 is examined.   Ext. D1 to D3 are marked.

Points 1 to 3

          The  case of the complainant is that she retired from service on 31.12.1998.   She is eligible to get pensionary benefits under the EPS 1995 as the pension scheme stands come into effect on 16.11.1995.  The opp.party 2 contended that as the complainant acquired 60 years of age before the commencement of the 1995 scheme, she is not eligible to get pension.   The only matter to be decided is whether the complainant is within the scheme of the EPS 1995.   According to the 2^nd opp.party as per Form No.2, the complainant’s date of birth stands as 3.10.1932.  Thereby she acquired 60 years on 3.10.1992 ie prior to the commencement of EPS 1995.  Moreover the 2^nd opp.party contended that the complainant was not a member of the Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971 or Employees Pension Scheme 1995.  On verification of Ext. D2 it is seen that the complainant did lnot contribute to the Family Pension Scheme 1971 and she had settled her provident Fund account on 22.11.2000.  Thereby the complainant is barred by period of limitation as under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.   Even though as per Ext.P1 the complainant retired from service on 31.12.1998 on attaining 60 years, the complainant failed to prove that she was a member  in the Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971 had given option to join in 1995 scheme.   As per Ext. D2   the complainant did not join in Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971 and not contributed to the said scheme.  She withdraw the Employees Provident Fund account on 22.11.2000 and thereby ceased membership in Employees Provident Fund.  Hence from the whole evidence we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled to get pension.  The rejection of her pension application by the 2^nd opp.party is legal.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties.  The complainant is entitled to no relief.

          In the result the complaint  fails and is dismissed without cost.

          Dated this the  30^th      day of  December, 2008

                                                                  .

I n d e x

List of witnesses for the complainant

PW.1. – Baby

List of documents for the complainant

P1. – Termination Order

P2. – ESI card

List of witnesses for the opp.parties

DW.1. – Balagopalan Nair.K.P.

List of documents for the opp.parties

D1. Intimation letter dated 1.12.2000

D2. – Form 3A

D3. – Nomination form.